http://www.bathandwells.org.uk/bishops_message/documents/025Darwindebate20-03-09.doc (http://www.bathandwells.org.uk/bishops_message/documents/025Darwindebate20-03-09.doc)
I thought this was a good speech - it was the last bit about accepting integrity vs belief that worked for me
QuoteThe celebration of Darwin's bicentenary would be deeply enriched by a common commitment to cosmic peace. For those of us who believe that in the end everything both comes from and goes back to God, that can be our contribution; for those whose integrity does not let them make that step, then our common journey must be one of wonder, respect for mystery and a commitment to the welfare of the planet and its future. If that were to happen, this celebration would be truly valuable for the future of humanity.
Sorry, Blackadder ruined the bishop of Bath and Wells for me. :(
What the fuck does integrity have to do with whether one believes in God or not?
Its not believing in something just because you're told by someone it exists. He's not trying to alienate his own, he's trying his best here.
Quote from: The Brain on August 09, 2009, 04:57:41 AM
Sorry, Blackadder ruined the bishop of Bath and Wells for me. :(
I'm told (by an unreliable source) that he is often followed round by that music
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fb%2Fbb%2FBlackadder_II_-_Money.jpg&hash=01aa09e809ae302c399796fc9dd7104b90e9e600)
It sounds like a plea for mercy from the bishop in the religion vs. science culture war.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 10:28:47 AM
It sounds like a plea for mercy from the bishop in the religion vs. science culture war.
The CofE don't really have any part in that culture war. They're entirely comfortable with most science.
Quote from: Solmyr on August 09, 2009, 05:26:52 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fb%2Fbb%2FBlackadder_II_-_Money.jpg&hash=01aa09e809ae302c399796fc9dd7104b90e9e600)
The only Bishop of Bath and Wells, there is... :thumbsup:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3660275/Bishop-of-Bath-and-Wells-Lingering-torment-of-Blackadder.html
Quote from: The Brain on August 09, 2009, 10:56:30 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3660275/Bishop-of-Bath-and-Wells-Lingering-torment-of-Blackadder.html
:D
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 09, 2009, 10:43:46 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 10:28:47 AM
It sounds like a plea for mercy from the bishop in the religion vs. science culture war.
The CofE don't really have any part in that culture war. They're entirely comfortable with most science.
They did at one point. They just lost their battle and were reduced to comments like those starting this thread earlier than other locales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate
Quote from: The Brain on August 09, 2009, 10:56:30 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3660275/Bishop-of-Bath-and-Wells-Lingering-torment-of-Blackadder.html
:lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 09, 2009, 05:09:33 AM
What the fuck does integrity have to do with whether one believes in God or not?
If you are convinced there is no God, you believing in God anyway, for whatever reason, wouldn't have much integrity to it. I think that is what he is getting at.
I hear people say alot something like 'I wish there was a God but I just do not see the evidence that can support it' or some such.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
They did at one point. They just lost their battle and were reduced to comments like those starting this thread earlier than other locales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate
Oh yeah, that debate's famous. But the modern CofE has no issue with science and hasn't for a very long time. There really is no science vs religion culture war in this country in terms of what science and religion think. The only conflict is on certain ethical/moral issues, even then it's generally a pretty elevated debate with Bishops and Professors sparring through lectures and letters to the Times.
Grallon is the Bishop of Bed, Bath and Beyond.
Quote from: Valmy on August 09, 2009, 06:03:27 PM
If you are convinced there is no God, you believing in God anyway, for whatever reason, wouldn't have much integrity to it. I think that is what he is getting at.
I hear people say alot something like 'I wish there was a God but I just do not see the evidence that can support it' or some such.
If you are convinced there is no God, it's impossible for you to "believe" in God. People really can't choose what they believe, though they can choose what they tell themselves and others.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 05:09:14 AM
If you are convinced there is no God, it's impossible for you to "believe" in God. People really can't choose what they believe, though they can choose what they tell themselves and others.
This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice. And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 10, 2009, 05:09:14 AM
If you are convinced there is no God, it's impossible for you to "believe" in God. People really can't choose what they believe, though they can choose what they tell themselves and others.
This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice. And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.
Yup. Pascal's wager postulated this, for example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:50:02 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
They did at one point. They just lost their battle and were reduced to comments like those starting this thread earlier than other locales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate
Oh yeah, that debate's famous. But the modern CofE has no issue with science and hasn't for a very long time. There really is no science vs religion culture war in this country in terms of what science and religion think. The only conflict is on certain ethical/moral issues, even then it's generally a pretty elevated debate with Bishops and Professors sparring through lectures and letters to the Times.
And actually, the debate hasn't gone away--it has just moved on to more fundamental issues. Britons such as Hitchens and Dawkins are very much involved in the science versus religion debates, even if the COE doesn't fight darwinism anymore. And the COE seems to be increasing losing the fight. It is in that light I see the bishop's plea for a "respect for mystery."
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice. And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.
That's not really believing then, is it?
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2009, 07:09:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice. And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.
Yup. Pascal's wager postulated this, for example.
Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion. Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly. The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.
And Binky really fucks things up.
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion. Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly. The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.
Yeah but if you don't play, you still lose.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2009, 07:28:21 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:50:02 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 09, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
They did at one point. They just lost their battle and were reduced to comments like those starting this thread earlier than other locales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate
Oh yeah, that debate's famous. But the modern CofE has no issue with science and hasn't for a very long time. There really is no science vs religion culture war in this country in terms of what science and religion think. The only conflict is on certain ethical/moral issues, even then it's generally a pretty elevated debate with Bishops and Professors sparring through lectures and letters to the Times.
And actually, the debate hasn't gone away--it has just moved on to more fundamental issues. Britons such as Hitchens and Dawkins are very much involved in the science versus religion debates, even if the COE doesn't fight darwinism anymore. And the COE seems to be increasing losing the fight. It is in that light I see the bishop's plea for a "respect for mystery."
The COE seems to be conceding on the point of the existence of god as well.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/believe-it-or-not-the-bishops-an-agnostic/2009/05/19/1242498751437.html
QuoteSo surely, he argues, it can find room for people like him - Christians who don't believe in God.
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 10, 2009, 07:09:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 05:19:02 AM
This isn't the case, I think there's some element of choice. And there's a whole strand of theology that says in a case of disbelief what's best is to follow the laws of God and hope that after that God grants you belief.
Yup. Pascal's wager postulated this, for example.
Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion. Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly. The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.
Plus it is subject to the "Pratchet Problem" - namely, after death, finding yourself in the hands of some gods saying "look what we do with Mr. Clever here ...". ;)
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion. Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly. The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive. Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive. Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.
:yawn: You aren't seriously going to try and claim that there are less than two mutually exclusive religions in the world, are you?
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
Pascal's wager doesn't scale past the decision to believe or not in a single religion. Once you get two or more mutually exclusive religions, believing in one leaves you totally screwed if you picked incorrectly. The larger the number of mutually exclusive religions, the worse off your odds are.
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive. Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.
Ecumenism exists within a religion not between them. Ecumenical movements with in Christianity and (apparently Buddhism) seek to either re-unite the scismed religion or to bring the sects into communion (a term the christians use for "live and let live and use each others churches"). A Catholic does believe that the Catholic Church is the only true way to salvation, but a Lutheran or an Orthodox Christian might get lucky while a Moslem or a Hindu really is screwed if he has rejected Christ.
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive. Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.
:yawn: You aren't seriously going to try and claim that there are less than two mutually exclusive religions in the world, are you?
That certainly is something that many mystics believe - for example, see the poetry of Hafiz.
QuoteI Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
Hafiz
Source: The Gift
"We aren't really religious, but I would say we are spiritual...."
Quote from: alfred russel on August 10, 2009, 07:28:21 AM
And actually, the debate hasn't gone away--it has just moved on to more fundamental issues. Britons such as Hitchens and Dawkins are very much involved in the science versus religion debates, even if the COE doesn't fight darwinism anymore. And the COE seems to be increasing losing the fight. It is in that light I see the bishop's plea for a "respect for mystery."
Yeah but Hitchens and Dawkins normally give up fighting the CofE. I watched Dawkins show and he interviewed the Bishop of Oxford. In the end he found nothing objectionable in the Bishop's belief except that they didn't seem to follow the logical conclusions of the Bible. The debate was pretty friendly and they work together against creationism.
The interview's here and quite good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs
And I don't think Hitchens and Dawkins can be classified as science in a science vs religion debate. They're part of a non-belief vs belief debate. As I say with the exceptions of the ethics of science, which both scientist and religious figures take very seriously.
Quote from: ulmont on August 10, 2009, 03:53:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 10, 2009, 03:44:47 PM
Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive. Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.
:yawn: You aren't seriously going to try and claim that there are less than two mutually exclusive religions in the world, are you?
No. But I did want to point out that a great many religious are not, in fact, mutually exclusive of each other.
Quote from: Viking on August 10, 2009, 04:07:38 PM
A Catholic does believe that the Catholic Church is the only true way to salvation, but a Lutheran or an Orthodox Christian might get lucky while a Moslem or a Hindu really is screwed if he has rejected Christ.
Not necessarily. If they reject Christ because they are unable to believe and otherwise lead good 'Catholic' lives, then they'll only be a virtuous pagan in a relatively painless part of Hell. Saladin's sitting with Plato.
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2009, 04:14:11 PM
That certainly is something that many mystics believe - for example, see the poetry of Hafiz.
QuoteI Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
Hafiz
Source: The Gift
I don't think that this is evidence of much. We can change just one word and show how this poem really doesn't say what you think it does:
QuoteI Have Learned
So much from Odin
That I can no longer
Call Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
I'm not sure it proves much grumbler, to say that you can change one word and thus change it's meaning. :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 10, 2009, 04:35:03 PM
And I don't think Hitchens and Dawkins can be classified as science in a science vs religion debate. They're part of a non-belief vs belief debate. As I say with the exceptions of the ethics of science, which both scientist and religious figures take very seriously.
Agreed, they both believe that religion, any religion, is harmful for various reasons. Dawkins has science as a reason for not believing and science as a tool against faith/belief. Hitchens treats science as a useful cudgel to bash his religious foes while his political theory is his reason for not believing.
QuoteI Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
Hafiz
Source: The Gift
That is why Hafiz is the shit. :wub:
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2009, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 10, 2009, 04:14:11 PM
That certainly is something that many mystics believe - for example, see the poetry of Hafiz.
QuoteI Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
Hafiz
Source: The Gift
I don't think that this is evidence of much. We can change just one word and show how this poem really doesn't say what you think it does:
QuoteI Have Learned
So much from Odin
That I can no longer
Call Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.
Giving the term "God" a culturally-specific meaning mutates rather completely what the poem is attempting to say - which is that, in his opinion, the
experience of God (namely, the
mystic experience) transcends cultural divisions.
You don't have to
agree with that of course, but you are I think
misunderstanding the basic point.
I rather suspect that when the poet talks about "God" with an uppercase "G" he does not mean the old white guy with a beard who lives in a stormcloud and rains lightning bolts on unbelievers - It's simply a lens through which he's interpreting the Sufi (or more broadly mystic) experience. The stress is on the "learned" - the point of the poem is that, if you really experience "God" directly, you
must realize that the petty distinctions created by humans to contain and label that experience are
meaningless (and indeed directly inimical to what "God" is). Thus, the poet
can no longer call himself a Christian, a Jew, etc. (and not a "Odin worshipping pagan" either) ...
even if he wanted to.
Again, one doesn't actually have to believe this is in fact true; just that this is what he's trying to convey.
the poem in full:
Quote
I Have Learned So Much
I
Have
Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call
Myself
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
a Buddhist, a Jew.
The Truth has shared so much of Itself
With me
That I can no longer call myself
A man, a woman, an angel,
Or even a pure
Soul.
Love has
Befriended Hafiz so completely
It has turned to ash
And freed
Me
Of every concept and image
my mind has ever known
Note that "God", "The Truth" and "Love" are treated as basically interchangable. Doesn't work very well with "Odin", whom as far as I remember isn't very lovey-dovey (mind you, neither is the OT Jehovah).
That is sort of central to my religion's beliefs on God, as an expression of the religious experience, so naturally we use alot of Hafiz.
Writing like Ank doth not a poet make.
Quote from: The Brain on August 11, 2009, 01:26:25 PM
Writing like Ank doth not a poet make.
But drinking Coors Light does!